SW1ki:Request for adminship/RFA archive/Alienplayer
Gimel Daleth/Alienplayer :Voting ends April 5th, 2007 :Support #Shadow 14:27, 22 March 2007 - Gimel is an excellent contributer to the background and 'flavor' of the MUSH, and also the wiki. Gimel has contributed much in the way of image manipulation, text editing, and general format to many articles on this wiki, and does so with an eye towards MUSH IC status. Gimel is heavily focused on IC accuracy and theme, an important virtue in one who is going to help administrate the web-based repository of our MUSH's history. Without such a focus, it becomes too easy for a public-editable entity to wander far off of base. Gimel will be good at helping people to keep things focused and canon-ly correct. I feel that a lot of the 'personal' issues that regard Gimel on the MUSH are often issues wherein Gimel's focus on canon correctness is misconstrued as personal attacks. Personally, being a much larger fan of the canon than people's personal attempts to distort canon to their own benefit, I often find myself coming down on Gimel's side. This attention to detail and canon correctness is absolutely necessary in a wiki admin. #Mahon 17:04, 27 March 2007 - Gimel has been a prolific contributor to this wiki, and appears to have a good grasp of the technical aspects. In my experiences dealing with Gimel on the MUSH, I have found it fairly easy to deal with Gimel in a constructive manner, even when our opinions are in conflict. I also consider him to be one of the sharpest knives in this particular drawer, with a good mind for details. His answers demonstrate to me that he's serious about this, and that this isn't just a flash-in-the-pan notion. The one criteria where I see Gimel as being "weak" is in his reputation on the MUSH itself. I cannot escape noticing that Gimel is unpopular in certain circles and have caught my share of unfavourable whispering about this candidate. But deeper analysis almost always leaves me more than a little unsympathetic and skeptical towards those who feel that they have somehow been deeply wronged by Gimel. I also consider that particular criteria to be the least important, and feel that relying upon it too heavily will be counter-productive in selecting admin. #Danik Kreldin 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) :Oppose #SW1 Kyle 03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I mostly agree with everything Prospero has written below. Gimel has a bad reputation on the MUSH, which alone is enough of a reason why I have voted in opposition. He has made some great contributions, but I think I myself am a case study on how you can be an excellent, detailed, consistent contributor without being an administrator. I can marginally understand the benefit of Gimel having the time to do things such as page deletions and the like, but I've never seen that as so much of a 'demand' as to warrant another administrator. Hawke, Danik, and Xerxes seem to get to my deletion requests in record time, and the vandalism seems to go away within hours. Anybody can play the role of editing spelling and grammar mistakes, and anybody can play the role of tweaking pages to fit a declared style. Shoot, normal users can even make templates. I just don't see the benefit in making someone with a relatively 'bad' (arguably 'terrible') MUSH reputation a wiki administrator. I mean no offense to you personally, Gimel, but a reputation does speak for itself, sadly. -- Something that also really concerns me is what Alienplayer said in his rebuttle below, about articles 3&4. I'm deeply concerned about any wiki administrator being the 'final authority'. The final authority about MUSH-related things are the MUSH Staff. The Wizards, Judges and Faction Staff. The wiki administration may very well be the final authority on matters of structure, design, and harassment, but they simply should never be the final authority on IC/OOC MUSH related issues. While I don't desire for this to turn into a flame session at all, that subject concerns deeply enough to want to add it on here. Without respecting the MUSH, this thing is pointless. (If this is all a misinterpretation, forgive me... but it wasn't stated otherwise in Alienplayer's rebuttle) #ImperialFH 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Yes, on some technical aspects, Gimel is an asset to the community, and were an administrator just a technical position, it might not be a bad role for Gimel to have. However in an open community like this, administrators have to do more than just revert vandalism, requirements 5 & 8 are there for a reason. Our Wiki is different than most other Wikis on Wiki-cities because our community interacts outside of this place. Therefore, an administrator needs to be a community and consensus builder, and quite honestly, I am convinced this user cannot fill that role. I have seen through both first hand experience and through quite a few others that Gimel has shown an aptitude for causing strife rather than abating it. From being insulting to accusatory where it is completely unnecessary, it has occurred far too many times on the MUSH and even an inkling of it has made its way to the Wiki to be ignored or written off as sour grapes or to be called merit less. For those reasons, I cannot support Gimel/AlienPlayer for Wiki Administrator. #Delede 17:08, 27 March 2007 #Twila Virda 17:10, 27 March 2007 I voted no because I feel that a member of an admin should be unbiased and I am uncertain that Gimel is after the warring (for the lack fo a better word) over Delede's wiki page. I understand that what's posted is supposed to as factual as possible, but it really felt like it was a personal grudge or something and that has led me to decide to vote what I did. #Nasa eagle 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I concur with the opinions presented in the oppose section. #Juran 16:36, 5 April 2007 I cannot support Gimel to become an Administrator for the above stated reasons of ImperialFH and SW1Kyle. #Del 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Between the reasons listed by Hawke, ImperialFH and Kyle, all of which mirror my own opinion in the matter far more eloquently than I could have written it, I too have to register a vote against. To add a more blunt reason, I want the admin of this wiki to be respectable. Gimel is not. :Neutral/Abstain/Conditional # Hawke / Rtufo 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) - Understanding the workload and technical requirements of wiki-wrangling, I'd like to see more (quantity and quality) production/editing first, or references (from other Wikis) Comments *I would for everyone who is voting for or against Gimel to post their reasons as to why they voted yes or no. --Danik Kreldin 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) *Where's yours then? --Juran 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) This comment was not part of the original discussion when it was archived. -- Xerxes 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Alienplayer's response I found myself essaying responses to multiple points, so this doesn't follow the questions in checklist form. I'll annote which questions are addressed in which section. 1, 2 &7: I'd like to be a wiki administrator because I feel that I could contribute to necessary parts of keeping the whole thing running as well as I do my piecemeal contributions. What I could do would be able to free up other administrators for more critical things, as I think my best service would be routine stuff that I could do on my usual overnight weekend stints. I particularly enjoy filling in the holes, providing content needed to complete entries and bringing in material from outside sources (adapted as needed) so that article I work on present the most complete information that they can. Of course there are certainly administration chores of which I am unaware and I look forward to finding out how else I can work to make things happen. Administrators on a public project such as a wiki are those laying the groundwork upon which others might build, assuring that the whole is usable and friendly to those who access it, and providing damage control, it's valuable to have someone slogging the routine jobs so that others can handle the critical and/or time-sensitive tasks. I'll be forthright here - I have a spouse and a job that takes anything from 36 to 55 hours out of my week and does not allow me to be online at any time during it. If the need is for someone who can wed themself to the wiki, I am not the right candidate. My offline life comes first. 3 & 4: Technical or political? Yes, which is to say that depends entirely upon the necessity of the moment. Technical should be predominant, overseeing that users can easily find and use the information presented. In the case of a wiki such as SW1ki the political enters into things when the theme is challenged, discrepancies exist, or when an entry steps out of bounds in some way. The entire nature of a user-editable base makes a tempering role the norm, coming to an agreement rather than enforcing an 'administrator' point of view. But at some point an administrator needs to be willing to be final authority. Without final authority there can be nothing but trouble. 5: Editing conflicts are interesting. When I realized I was in one recently I nabbed the version I was in the process of editing and dropped it into a text file then exited without saving, waiting until the other party had saved then going back in and adding what I'd been working on. That was easy, as we happened to be on the same wavelength. In the past I ran into a conflict where we disagreed about the same section. We worked it out in discussion and a compromise went up. I am a bit of a canon wank, be it pre-MUSH opening canon or IC as presented as the accurate version. In the case of such a situation I will stick by what has been ruled to be IC by the highest MUSH authority. The most recent was quite a mess as as best I can find out there still currently exist two utterly different IC takes on the same situation where only one should logically be. Since that's a MUSH, and not a wiki, issue, I've let it lie. When a final version comes out and the contradictions are cleared up, that will be the side I accept. We must support IC here; the scope of the wiki is to reflect what is on SW1 MUSH. That is how I shall operate, now and in the future. 6: Of all the work I've contributed, I'll call the Etti IV planetary entry my best work. I took it from nothing to a full, usable entry, assuring that both pre-MUSH canon and IC accuracy were preserved. Beyond that I find a great deal of satisfaction in things like the Near-human article where I made the text 'ours' rather than a plagiarism of Wookieepedia, and I must admit a great deal of enjoyment in adding images and other things that make an entry visually interesting. 8: It should be important for all regular contributors to be involved in discussion. Group project, group responsibility to make it work. Personally, if I have nothing to say, I'll say nothing, but that more likely means that the apparent group consensus reflects my own opinions rather than me having no opinion. Voting is important because it's too easy for apathy to cause an unrealistic slant in the outcome. Even if discussion contribution seems unnecessary (I am not a fan of 'me too' posting) a vote is a concrete show of support or dissent and should be logged. I'm willing to let others' words reflect my opinion, but I'm going to speak my own position in a vote. 9 & 10: I think that occasionally policy cannot cover the instant case, so there's no black and white about performing deletions, blocks, etc. The situation needs to be reviewed before action is taken and only if the change or block was done maliciously or in a manner not furthering the purpose of the wiki should sanctions occur. This isn't to say I don't believe that policy should be upheld, but there will always be situations not covered with what has been written. Policy can, and should, be occasionally adapted to meet previously unforeseen situations. In that moment where it has not been, the situation must be reviewed before the decision to punish should be made. I'll play the optimist here and assume that no one who has become admin actually wishes to act maliciously against the users or good of the wiki. In this outlook, after being informed that the actions taken are unacceptable, and why, the administrator should be given the chance to atone. Should they not take it, then a term of being blocked from administration-level access could be used to remind them that it is a privilege, never a right, to have control over certain functions. Showing a general propensity to misuse administration perks for personal agenda furtherance should result in permanent removal from administration, but this ought to really be the worst-case scenario. To suddenly be unable to do one's administration job would, it is hoped, serve as a necessary wake up call that the position is one of service to the wiki, not special interests. This segues into the blocking of an established user. Again, punitive action for gross misuse of the wiki for furtherance of individual (rather than MUSH-IC) purposes or spamming of entries either as harassment or retaliation toward another wiki user should be implimented. Examples include repeatedly changing facts they don't like but which are perfectly IC, sabotage of entries they dislike or simply because they get the urge to vandalize, or personal attacks and using the wiki as a means to harass another user. Once gets a warning. Twice gets an ultimatum. Thrice gets a block, preferably for a proscribed length of time to give the user the chance to figure out they aren't going to get away with it. Yes, I do believe in multiple chances. Permanent blocking should only occur if the user has been proven to be incorrigible or of they do a mass-attack on the wiki and wreak havoc over multiple articles. This is a forum of exchange for information for game purposes, not personal opinion and harassment. 12 & 14: Consensus is important, as the whole concept of a MUSH is a Shared Hallucination. However I've seen that taken to extremes in my 18 years playing MU* games, so I'll underline the need for policy with the tempering attitude that except in sports no one set of rules can foresee all necessary future adaptions. Policy should be followed until a situation which is not covered by policy arises, at which point discussion must take place to forge new policy or create adaptations in existing policy to cover the instant case. Policy should ultimately reflect consensus as much as is feasible, but with hard limits to assure that things do not get out of hand. Where policy is in place, it should be followed. Where policy lacks, the situation should be reviewed so that the overall intent of existing policy can be maintained with adaptations or perhaps new policy to assure that the situation fit into the general needs of the wiki. This has already occurred here, so I suspect I'm not the only one who sees it in this manner. The wiki is subordinate to the MUSH. I cannot even consider it an official reflection of things as they are on the MUSH, nor should it be the sole repository of rules and information required by the MUSH (sorry, Hawke). The Rules need to be in a completely controlled environment rather than one alterable at will by anyone, as does canon history. That said, it should be the goal of wiki contributors to follow the MUSH history as faithfully as possible, and the role of wiki administration to assure tis is done. This is a supporting entity, a repository of far more information than any closed-access informational could ever have. It gives a place for creative outlet of the users, sometimes in things that never have been directly reflected on the MUSH ICly (personal example - the Rodian Hunter Registry). 11: I'd like to see something better in the contents and indexing presentations. Even with the hours I've spent prowling around I sometimes find it difficult to locate things, and search is only useful when you remember enough about the entry to type in something it can coherently seek for you. I'm thinking tabled hierarchies with sub-categories listed indented beneath their parent entries. I've noticed much movement toward this sort of thing already and truly appreciate what's been done. I know that it's possible, don't have the sort of skills required to do the job I'd want done yet, but see that others have obviously also seen it as an important step toward increasing usability and browse-friendliness. Oh, and some images on the Main Page would be nice, too. 13: In my second month on the MUSH I was made a New Player Helper and have been in that position longer than any other Helper. * Hawke also requested references. I have but one - Wookieepedia, where I am also Alienplayer. (You can find me on Uncyclopedia, as well, but that hardly counts.) I concentrate most of my efforts here. As for quantity and quality here, that is a matter of record already. --Alienplayer 23:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Administrators If Gimel does become an Administrator, we will have four administrators - which I think is more than enough for a Wiki of our size. So if Gimel wins, I think we should close down voting for Administrators until one or more step down. If Gimel doesn't won, nominations can continue as normal until a fourth spot can be filled. --Danik Kreldin 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)